4e: The final word

[Brother MacLaren]

Other than semantics, I have yet to see what makes certain editions D&D and certain other editions not D&D.

It's like pornography -- I know it when I see it, thanks to decades of experience.

I would speculate that many of those of us who have a narrower view of "what is D&D" probably have a few specific game design principles that we regard as essential. For me, one of those is Vancian magic. For decades, I understood this to be a major dividing line between "D&D" and "Not D&D." In discussions with other gamers, those who liked other systems extolled the lack of Vancian magic. So that came to me to be a defining characteristic of D&D. It's absolutely fundamental to a fantasy RPG to have some way of balancing magic against mundane options. There were many ways to address this, but late 3.5 really turned me off with its movement on this issue.

 

[Bagpuss]

4e still lets you kill things and take their stuff.

although it doesn't let you sell there stuff, at least not it is mundane.

 

[Engilbrand]

Kleenex is now a generic name for any sort of "facial tissue".
For people who aren't familiar with D&D, the statement, "I play D&D." means that that person gets together with other people, rolls dice, and pretends to be an elf or whatever.
Among people who are familiar with RPGs and whatever, "I play D&D." means a bit more.
If you're talking to people who play D&D, the statement, "I play D&D." should net you a follow-up question of, "Which edition?"

I still have yet to see 3 things from the many that I posted:
1. Is America really America?
2. What makes D&D what it is?
3. What makes 4th edition NOT D&D?

Don't argue semantics. These are very straightforward questions. If anyone feels strongly that 4th edition isn't D&D, then they should be able to answer these questions in a way that makes sense. Also, attempting to flip them around back on the rest of us is ridiculous. The side of "4th edition is D&D" has made its point. The other side has not.

 

[justanobody]

D&D is a brand, not a franchise.


You might be on to something.

Brand: trade name: a name given to a product or service

Franchise: Legal arrangement whereby the owner of a trade name, franchisor, contracts with a party that wants to use the name on a non-exclusive basis to sell goods or services, franchisee

I guess the non-exclusive threw me off a bit. But isn't that what the OGL did?

I still have yet to see 3 things from the many that I posted:
1. Is America really America?
2. What makes D&D what it is?
3. What makes 4th edition NOT D&D?

Don't argue semantics.

So you want to give definitions without giving the meanings of the words?

Semantics: The "meaning" of words, those connotations that you might look up in a dictionary

Definition: a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

I will answer your questions when you define what a chair is without semantics.

 

[Engilbrand]

Let's ignore dictionary definitions for a moment. Most people know what someone means when that person says, "It's just a matter of semantics." Ignore that little nonsense. You know exactly what the questions are. You are currently deflecting. Answer or don't. If you don't, it tells us a lot about your position.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

2. What makes D&D what it is?

There are three options here:

A) D&D is whatever has the D&D brand name on it. WotC can put out literally any game they want and call it D&D. This is an objective definition.

B) D&D is any game that has the D&D brand name AND enough similarities to the individual's idea of the essential nature of D&D to be called D&D. This is subjective. It is up to the individual to decide what the essential similarities are and whether a given edition does well enough to meet that standard.

C) D&D is any game that has enough similarities to the individual's idea of the essential nature of D&D to be called D&D, whether or not it has the brand name. So some might consider C&C or LL to be "D&D." This is also subjective.

The only way you can say "4E is D&D and that's the final word" is if you are taking the first option. If you are taking the second, you are saying "it has the brand name and enough similarities to my idea of what D&D is to count as D&D."

Is Van Halen's III a Van Halen album? What if Alex released an album without Eddie? Is Chinese Democracy "a GnR album"? Is Ewoks: The Battle for Endor "a Star Wars movie"? And since Shakespeare is public domain, I can take "Hamlet," butcher the plot and dialogue, and stage my version calling it "Hamlet" because I have the right to do so. Does that make it "Hamlet"? You can certainly say that brand ownership defines what a thing is, but many people have opinions about some essential nature of a thing that goes beyond the name on the label. But defining that essential nature is NOT a simple matter. I can't tell you exactly how many words you have to change before it stops being Hamlet. It's often more of a feeling. That doesn't make it an invalid perspective.

 

[justanobody]

Most people know what someone means when that person says, "It's just a matter of semantics."

Yeah it usually means someone is trying to force your words to say what they want to say to win some argument rather than look at actual facts that could prove their own position to be false.

Your questions are already loaded. What idiot would take on such loaded questions head on?

1. Is America really America?

North or South?
village in the Netherlands?
Ferrera?
United States of?

You question is pointles because it is too vague and loaded since anyway anyone responds to you can easily say "that isn't what I was asking".

2. What makes D&D what it is?

This is all semantics and subjectivity. It can be not be used to prove anything in an argument other than people are going to argue over their own opinions.

3. What makes 4th edition NOT D&D?

Again this can easily be answered, but in turn you could claim with your own semantics that the answer does not qualify for what you are asking. But here you go with an answer and proof for this question.

D&D is a series of individual games bearing the name over the past 3 decades. No one game in the series is wholly D&D. Therefore while 4th edition may carry the name of the newest game in the series, it is not all inclusive to defining D&D. Therefore 4th edition is not D&D but a part of a greater whole of the individual games over those decades that has bore the name of D&D.

4th edition is a D&D, but 4th edition is not all D&D, so saying 4th edition is D&D is false.

To try and claim that "4th edition is D&D" would make your statement suffer from recentism rather than facts, because your claim is not fully founded.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I still have yet to see 3 things from the many that I posted:
1. Is America really America?

Semantics first. There is no America. There is a North American Continent and a South American Continent. There is a country called the United States of America on the North American Continent. I assume you are referring in your question to the United States of America.

Without semantics. The United States of America is a nation state founded in 1789 and continues on to this day. The nation state is formed under its controlling document The Constitution of the United States. This nation state is the same nation state as it was in 1789 because it is still regulated and controlled by its constitution in an uninterrupted manner since its founding. While the borders of the country and its leaders and people have changed over time they have done so under the rules established in this founding document. Even the fact that the founding document is not exactly the same at this time does not change this as all because changes to the founding document were made using the rules set forth in the original founding document. Thus America is still America.

2. What makes D&D what it is?

Each person has his/her own definition of what makes D&D to them. There is no one answer.

3. What makes 4th edition NOT D&D?

Depending on the definition of what makes D&D what it is, this question can also have many answers.

Don't argue semantics.

To me there were enough similarities between OD&D and all following editions that I would say that they were all D&D to me. The change to daily/encounter/at will powers as the basis for all characters went to far. The removal of vancian magic went to far. The creation of quantum hitpoints went to far. These are but some of the reasons that I don't see 4th edition as D&D.

Under a strict definition only the original D&D box set with Hobbits is D&D. I am loosening that definition for myself by allowing other things to also count as D&D. I do not loosen the definition enough to include 4th Edition. Others do.

I hope that was semanticless enough for you.

 

[Engilbrand]

I think I'll just ignore Justanobody's responses from now on.
Brown Jenkin, I thank you for finally answering some questions. You seem to look at D&D as mostly mechanics rather than idea or feel. That's fine. I'm not sure what you mean by Quantum hit points, but I get that some people are struggling with martial characters healing and stuff like that. Apparently, there are just enough differences in mechanics to push 4th edition over the edge for you.
I haven't paid much attention to something, though. Do you admit that 4th edition just isn't for you and doesn't fit your idea, or do you go around telling other people that 4th edition isn't D&D? It would seem to be the former from your post.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I think I'll just ignore Justanobody's responses from now on.
Brown Jenkin, I thank you for finally answering some questions. You seem to look at D&D as mostly mechanics rather than idea or feel. That's fine. I'm not sure what you mean by Quantum hit points, but I get that some people are struggling with martial characters healing and stuff like that.

See this thread for a long discussion on quantum hitpoints.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...rked-thread-disappointed-d-d-4th-edition.html

Apparently, there are just enough differences in mechanics to push 4th edition over the edge for you.
I haven't paid much attention to something, though. Do you admit that 4th edition just isn't for you and doesn't fit your idea, or do you go around telling other people that 4th edition isn't D&D? It would seem to be the former from your post.

I will answer in reverse. I don't think 4th Edition is D&D and I will tell people that. I do not think 4e is right for me if I am trying to play D&D. I do not think 4e is a bad game, I think it is a good miniatures skirmish rules set.